Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are perhaps better.
Statists don’t understand economics or inflation. They don’t understand how (and why) cops cause crime. They don’t understand rights. They don’t understand legislation. They don’t understand how foreign meddling creates enemies. They don’t understand anything they want to regulate or ban.| They don’t understand simple language. They don’t understand human nature. They don’t understand history. They don’t understand the difference between the state and society. They don’t understand why free speech matters, or what it is. They don’t understand ethics or morality. They don’t understand physics or science in general, or how science works. They don’t understand democracy. They don’t understand how children learn or what inspires them. They don’t understand liberty. They don’t understand much of anything that matters when people live around other people. They don’t understand why people chafe under their control. They don’t understand government.
This list isn’t close to comprehensive. The list of things statists don’t understand, but think they should be in charge of anyway, is staggering.
And, despite this monumental lack of understanding they’ve built their entire government-supremacist edifice upon, I’m expected to let them run my life? I don’t think so.
I’m better off taking care of myself. And so are you. I understand that you’re better off making your own mistakes.
The cop was a coward (what a shock) and killed someone who wasn’t even a threat to him. Even if the guy had been a threat, a cop is ethically required to die to avoid violating someone’s rights. Don’t like it? That’s easy: Don’t be a cop.
The cop knocked and hid from the peephole. Multiple times, He didn’t adequately announce himself– but even if he had it wouldn’t have made a difference because in that case, it’s either a badged thug or a freelance thug at your door, and both will murder you. It’s a no-win situation for the good guy.
Then, worst of all, the badged parasite briefly caught a glimpse of someone doing something they had a right to be doing, in a place they had a right to be, and he shot that person to death because he was afraid.
That cop needs to be exposed. He needs to be stripped of his position, blocked from ever collecting another cent of “tax” money or having any position of power over anyone, and any pension he might have collected needs to be given to the grieving survivors his cowardly act left behind. At a minimum.
Also, something about boiling tar and dirty feathers comes to mind, although that might be vengeful and I’m opposed to revenge,,. so…
There are no words to describe how utterly worthless that cop is. As well as all who are like him. The same is true for those working tirelessly to lick the jackboots of cowardly, murderous legislation enforcers by making the case that seeing anyone who isn’t a cop with a gun merits immediate death.
Cops are scum, and copsuckers are lower than scum.
I can’t look at anything without analyzing it. I can look at and enjoy beautiful sights, but I am going to also analyze what I’m looking at. I may not always analyze it correctly— that’s a separate issue– but my brain is going to be working on it. It seems to serve me fairly well.
To me, understanding something is part of the beauty of it. I realize not everyone has the same experience. I’ve even found some people who have the opposite reaction.
For a couple of years now, my daughter has been wanting us to watch the TV series Young Sheldon together. A couple of days ago we finally got around to starting it. We weren’t too far into the first episode when she said “Dad, that’s you!“
Presumably, without taking into account his math skills.
Yes, I do see some similarities. Even some that are less than flattering. I can’t argue that my mind isn’t analytical, though.
It’s why I’m not going to buy the justifications for the state that others want so hard to believe. In my analysis, the justifications don’t hold up.
It’s why I’m not going to excuse a cop who goes to the wrong door and then murders the person who answers the door holding a gun. It’s why I don’t automatically believe “climate change” is a crisis. It’s why I wasn’t susceptible to COVID fearmongering. It’s why I think elections are always rigged, and it matters less than some might believe. It’s why I don’t care where someone was born, only what they do. It’s why, many years ago, I gave serious consideration to the argument that “we” would be better off if guns were banned, and then utterly rejected that position in its entirety.
Since I can’t look at the world without analyzing everything anyway, I might as well use it in a way that seems useful to me and gives some context to what’s going on. If it also gets me closer to understanding reality, that’s a bonus.
The solution to crime isn’t more crime. It’s not more government, which is a criminal organization. It’s not more legislation, more stringent enforcement, more cops, harsher punishment. Raising “taxes” can’t solve crime. All those things are crime in the real sense.
Those things aren’t going to make things better for the non-criminals among us.
I understand the concept of fighting fire with fire. This isn’t that.
This is “fighting fire” by burning all the firetrucks, dumping all the water into the ocean, and throwing all the firefighters down a well where they can’t be of any use, while hiring more arsonists and nihilists and expecting them to make things better.
It’s insanity.
The real solution to crime is liberty. It always has been and always will be. No matter how many career criminals claim otherwise.
Why do I keep returning to the natural right of each and every human being to own and to carry guns? Because when it comes to liberty, unless you get that right, you’ll get everything wrong.
This right is non-negotiable, along with the right to free speech, freedom of association, and the right to own and use property. Anyone on the other side, or trying to keep a toe on the other side, is a danger to you…read the rest…
“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” ~ Peter Drucker
Things such as v*ting, governing others, spending “tax” money, registering vehicles, writing legislation, etc.
I don’t want government to be more efficient. I don’t want the IRS and its tax code to be more efficient. I don’t want murder to be efficient and industrialized. I want everything government does to be difficult, expensive, complicated, messy, and screwed up. I don’t want government to have a more efficient way of enslaving the population. I want them to be hated on the path to being eliminated.
I really don’t understand those who advocate for government efficiency. If they mean to govern, I want it to hurt and inconvenience people enough that they will stop tolerating it. I want the population to want to get rid of the things that violate human rights, not make government work more smoothly on less money.
This is a little morbid, but someone (not me) wanted to go to the park to see where those women were murdered last week. So that became Wednesday’s field trip.
I followed the directions to the crime scene (from the public reports), knowing that people aren’t generally great at compass directions and that sometimes “authorities” intentionally give incorrect information to misdirect people coming to gawk at a crime scene. (People like me, I suppose.)
The information from the cops said it happened 100 yards north of the pond closest to the entrance. It said the bodies were found beside a minivan.
At the scene, I saw there was no way a minivan could have been north of that pond– or even sort of north– unless it was airlifted in. So, incorrect information. But which information is incorrect? Location? Or the presence of the minivan? Was it even this pond? There are 2 other ponds in the park (near roads), but they are considerably farther from the entrance.
Working on the shakey assumption the pond indicated is the right pond, I scanned the area.
About 100 yards directly west of that pond, right beside the road, where cars regularly park (I’ve parked there in the past), there was a strange spot in the dirt. The surface looked artificially “weathered”. Completely different from any other surface conditions anywhere around, and different from any natural surface conditions I have ever seen in my extensive time outdoors.
A spot maybe 6 feet across looked scoured. Like high-pressure air– coming from one direction– had been used to blast away the top inch or two of dirt. It almost looked like pressurized water had been directed at the surface, but there was no run-off in the area beyond, where you would expect to see such a thing if water had been used. And there has been no rain here in the past week or three. Alternatively, the marks could have been made by a horizontally spinning brush like a vacuum cleaner brush.
I tried to search for information on how an outdoor dirt crime scene is cleaned of blood (probably not the best thing to search for– Hi, NSA. For future reference, I don’t murder people). I wasn’t able to find any useful information before I stopped looking.
Do any of you know if either of these methods is used to clear away the dirt under and around a crime scene as a standard practice? I keep trying to think of any other explanation for the marks I saw in the dirt and I’m drawing a blank. This spot may have nothing to do with the crime, anyway. Maybe there’s another reason someone scoured the ground in that spot. But why?
I have strained my eyes looking at the one photo (possibly from a drone) taken of the cops on the scene after the bodies were discovered and nothing adds up. It doesn’t appear they are in the right location. Things are obviously not as reported. It may not have even been at this particular pond. After all, government lies.
Also, I have never once had first-hand knowledge of an event which made the news that was, in my opinion, reported accurately. So there’s that.
If you’re interested, here’s an update on the guy who was caught with the child taken from the scene.
Exposure to statists and their insane notions can be bad for your mental health.
If those notions are put into action, they can kill you.
They think they are terribly enlightened. “Adult”. Pragmatic. What they are is a disease of society. The more statists, the sicker the society. At some critical mass of statism, society ceases to be. All you’re left with at that point is politics. The ideology of the stupid and/or evil.
Yes, I allowed myself to be exposed to too much statism over the past few minutes, and I’m feeling the ill effects. Time for an infusion of liberty.
A statist will ask what they believe is a gotcha question. The question is then answered fully, rationally, and completely, but instead of actually seeing the answer, the statist refuses to acknowledge an answer was given. At this point they either go into an endless time loop, asking the same question that has already been answered over and over again, repeating “why won’t you answer the question?“, or they’ll pivot to something else they believe is a gotcha question. Studiously ignoring the answer that was provided in response to the original question.
Ignore-ance is willful ignorance. Carefully maintained by closing off reality when it is shown to them.
It’s not something you’ll cut through. It’s something to pity. The good thing is, it’s basically an admission that the statist understands– on a subconscious level– that they are wrong; on the loser side.
Without ignore-ance statism wouldn’t last a day. Expect to see more of it as statism crumbles.
Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog 